Talk:Future Nostalgia

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Future Nostalgia[edit]

I mean is there such difference between singles and promotional singles that the promotional single shouldn't be under singles? Someone can retract my editing if so. Qwerty21212121 (talk) 13:54, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Under the “Singles” section of other albums, promotional singles are usually not listed as singles. In fact, edit wars have started because promotional singles were listed as singles. Shrewd0307 (talk) 15:17, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Love Again"[edit]

"Love Again" samples White Woman's "Your Town". ---Another Believer (Talk) 18:11, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It actually doesn't. "Your Woman" samples a song (by Al Bowlly), which White Town also sampled - see the lede and composition section in that page. The Billboard article you linked states: "..."Love Again", which features a 1930s Al Bowlly trumpet sample that was made extraordinarily popular after its use in White Town's 1997 alt-pop hit "Your Woman" + "While listeners may have instantly recalled White Town's hit upon hearing "Love Again", Mishra (White Town) notes that he was never contacted by Dua for its use -- since, technically speaking, the song was Al Bowlly’s first. However, he is aware that "Your Woman" brought the lovelorn trumpets to public consciousness". Hope this clarifies things for other users who add the "sample" back in the track list section. AshMusique (talk) 23:56, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@AshMusique, we shouldn't just be working off one source. Multiple reliable sources confirm that "Love Again" samples "Your Woman":

Here are some sources that confirm BOTH songs are sampled:

Plus Lipa HERSELF confirmed that "Your Woman" is being sampled:

So I Think I've made my point that both song's should be included in the sample credit. LOVI33 12:30, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

LOVI33 I understand your point, however, those are all sources with their own original research, whereas the Billboard article (the one you cited in the article) is an exclusive interview with White Town where he explicitly states Dua Lipa/Lipa's team did not contact him to clear any samples, which debunks any story citing that it was sampled from the White Town song, and which also means they sampled the same song White Town sampled - Al Bowlly's "My Woman", since songs have to be cleared for sample usage. Just because those sources say it samples the White Town track, doesn't mean it does - they most likely are only familiar with the White Town song, since it was way more popular and more recent than the actual sampled song, which belongs to Al Bowlly, and since Bowlly's song was first sampled and then became notable in White Town's "Your Woman", I can only assume that's why they attribute the sample to White Town. Concerning the quote by Lipa herself, she is most likely mistaken as well, for the same reasons I stated above - she actually says one of the producers thought of adding the sample, not herself, so herphaps she was/is unaware of the actual sample. Either way, Lipa saying that is not an official credit. AllMusic is also not a 100% reliable source. Once again, referencing the Billboard article, which states: "[...]Love Again which features a 1930s Al Bowlly trumpet sample that was made extraordinarily popular after its use in White Town's 1997 alt-pop hit "Your Woman.", and furthermore "While listeners may have instantly recalled White Town's hit upon hearing "Love Again," Mishra notes that he was never contacted by Dua for its use -- since, technically speaking, the song was Al Bowlly's first. However, he is aware that "Your Woman" brought the lovelorn trumpets to public consciousness. Also, here is a tweet from White Town, aka Jyoti Mishra himself, stating that both his song and Lipa's song used the same sample. AshMusique (talk) 15:06, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 4 May 2020[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Consensus to move. Doing buidhe 05:01, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Future Nostalgia (Dua Lipa album) → Future Nostalgia – WP:TWODABS. LOVI33 (talk) 01:54, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose — Considering there is a song of the album title (by the same artist) and another album under the same title, I don't believe it should be moved, however, reserve the right to change my stance following further input. livelikemusic talk! 14:50, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I think this is the primary topic. The song is not viewed even a fraction as much as the album it comes from, and the Sheepdogs album is so obscure as to be irrelevant to the discussion. Given that 99.9% of people searching Future Nostalgia probably want something Dua Lipa-related anyway, I think the album probably qualifies as WP:CONCEPTDAB also. Nohomersryan (talk) 18:14, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – page views are a good reason to make this article the primary Future Nostalgia as this one is getting far more. Also, the Future Nostalgia song is also Dua Lipa and this can be done like what was done for Ariana Grande's Thank U, Next and Thank U, Next (song). MusicalTV (talk) 18:29, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – As per Nohomersryan and Musical TV's comments above. By far the primary topic. The DAB page itself is even receiving 3 times more views than The Sheepdogs album article. Cool Marc ✉ 02:29, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Other pages with this name. It's not matter of how popular a single page is, as not everyone will be searching for that topic. 49.180.123.3 (talk) 04:25, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose It can't be assumed that everyone will be searching for this version of the album not can it be assumed that they know about this version of the album oppose to the other.--2001:8003:3350:D500:88D8:E538:FFB1:ED0E (talk) 04:30, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per page views. Obviously, this is the most popular page and it deserves to hold the primary-topic title. Hatnotes are there to direct to different pages if the reader is searching for something else. — Tom(T2ME) 10:25, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. Unreal7 (talk) 20:41, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Like others are saying, there are other pages with this title. No point of over writing it with this page, when someone can be looking for something else.-- 2001:8003:3350:D500:F9FD:DD57:1235:5880 (talk) 04:52, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
information Administrator note Struck obviously 2nd vote from same anon editor. You only get to !vote once. -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:55, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - by far the primary topic per pageviews. I have actually been visiting this article for a few days and been shocked that its disambiguated.--NØ 09:07, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per Nohomersryan's response. KyleJoantalk 08:10, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Since there’s no other album named “Future Nostalgia”, it would make sense that there is no need to put in brackets Dua Lipa Album after it. The song will just be put as “Future Nostalgia (song)” Shrewd0307 (talk) 15:15, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Singles[edit]

Future Nostalgia is a single of the the album. First, it was released separately from the album with its own cover art. Second, it was serviced to radio on the date of its release. Third, there are reliable sources calling it a single. Here are the link to the sources: https://web.archive.org/web/20191213230745/https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-news/dua-lipa-single-future-nostalgia-926610/

https://www.iheart.com/content/2019-12-14-dua-lipa-drops-sassy-retro-future-nostalgia-title-track-listen/


T WAL209 (talk) 19:37, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Requested move 24 July 2020[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Consensus to not move. (non-admin closure) — YoungForever(talk) 20:12, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Future Nostalgia → Future Nostalgia (album) – I suggest this page be moved provided so it can less confusion as the title single. Happypillsjr ✉ 16:50, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose and suggest speedily closing It looks like there was already a consensus a month or so ago, and nothing has changed. Respectfully, would suggest withdrawing the nomination. The album appears to be a clear primary topic, receiving an overwhelming percentage of the pageviews (like 95 percent), and with the majority of coverage from a search for the term focusing on the album over the song. But the hatnote up top should probably still include the song too.--Yaksar (let's chat) 20:24, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Separately, if this does happen we'd want to include the artist name to distinguish from Future Nostalgia (The Sheepdogs album).--Yaksar (let's chat) 20:40, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Good faith nom, but there is no reason to discuss this again so soon. Nohomersryan (talk) 03:48, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - And suggest snow close. The album is by far the primary topic.--NØ 07:25, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose – primary topic, getting way more page views than any other Future Nostalgia. LOVI33 12:38, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Obviously, the album is the primary topic. The title track is definitely less known. — Tom(T2ME) 20:08, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Levitating[edit]

@LOVI33: I do not think it is a single, nor does it say it in the reference. It will simply be a remix. As with Physical, Dua collaborated with Hwa Sa and they did a remix that ended in an EP called "Physical (Remixes)".[1] In this case, Dua's collaboration with Madonna and the others singers will be included in the EP "Levitating (Remixes)" and the track will be called "Levitating (Blessed Madonna Remix)". Alexismata7 (talk) 20:48, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Alexismata7, I don't know if your saw but I added a source that confirms it, plus I have an additional one here: [2][3]. In the case with "Physical", it's remix was released after the official single release in order to further promote the single, like what all other Future Nostalgia singles have done. Personally, I would say it is unlikley that Lipa would release a remix to a song with very well known collaborators unless she was prepared to release it as a single. I guess it is open for discussion and we can see what others think. LOVI33 20:53, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I find it very strange, so happened with Physical that was rated as a single.[4] I do not see the Levitating song promoting itself with a music video with Madonna and Missy Eliott, it seems to me more like a clue of all the remixes that Dua has released this quarantine like "Don't Start Now (Remixes)", "Physical (Remixes)" and "Break My Heart (Remixes)". What would happen next if Dua released the single with the authentic track along with its respective music video and artwork?. I honestly don't see any editor creating an article about "Levitating" and writing only about the remix version there. Alexismata7 (talk) 21:09, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@LOVI33: The reference you provide from Vulture refers to the song will be remixed by The Blessed Madonna. And what I see out is the media stir because Dua is collaborating with Madonna but I doubt it is a single. On the other hand, the second reference that you gave me from Metro is not accepted here on English Wikipedia because Metro is generally considered an unreliable source.Alexismata7 (talk) 21:30, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alexismata7, firstly a music video in no way makes a song a single and the Don't Start Now remixes were released in January [5]. The Vulture reference states Madonna and Missy Elliott, to remix her current single "Levitating.", confirming it's single status. LOVI33 21:43, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tracklistings[edit]

Track listings, in my experience, have been formatted to keep from repeating songs. I've never known them to be in release order. That is what Release history is for. Whitevenom187 (talk) 14:01, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

They should be used in release order. Chronological order makes most sense. Also this notion of "not repeating songs" is confusing for the average reader. For example, Japan quite often gets its own single version which includes the songs from the deluxe edition plus extra bonus tracks. If you only list the "extra" bonus tracks, it makes it seem as if the deluxe and standard editions were also released in Japan. That makes no sense. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 10:03, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Listicles - Mid year lists[edit]

Two things:

  1. "Listicles" - this is not commonly known lexicon or accessible/easily understood by readers. Should the section not be renamed?
  2. "Mid-year lists" - there are a lot of "half year" or "so far" lists, some I'd argue which are of questionable notable. The publications themselves are notable but the lists aren't necessarily. Should these be included? ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 12:47, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Definitely. Terrible section name.
  2. I usually include them, but not in chart form. There’s so much coverage for this subject that I wouldn’t oppose removal, but I’d probably move it to the prose and condense it into a sentence. ("Future Nostalgia was featured on the best of the year list for Rollong Stone,(ref) Entertainment Weekly,(ref), etc etc. Sergecross73 msg me 14:26, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Year end lists[edit]

The Year end lists section is becoming way too overlong... one has to scroll a lot to get to the end of the table. Could we hide it under a hide/show button, that I saw on other articles? (Like here: Dive Bar Tour (Lady Gaga)#Set lists) --5.38.148.118 (talk) 14:46, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. LOVI33 17:48, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
eraser Undone per MOS:COLLAPSE. LOVI33 can I suggest that if the album isn't ranked, it is instead included in prose. Where it features on multiple editors for the same publication, again put in prose. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 22:06, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Lil-unique1,  Done. Also, do you think the one genre lists, like the pop lists should also be put into the prose? LOVI33 23:16, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 11 February 2021[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. I already !voted but the nominator is withdrawing it and there are no supporting opinions here to continue the remaining days. (non-admin closure) (CC) Tbhotch™ 19:06, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Future Nostalgia → Future Nostalgia (Dua Lipa album) – There is at least one other album with the name "Future Nostalgia" by a different artist. There is also a song and tour of this name. Therefore WP:DAB suggestions that where there is a lack of primary topic and plausible other topics a dab page should be used. Future Nostalgia (disambiguation) should exist at Future Nostalgia. I believe previous discussions were tainted by the notion "Perhaps the most commonly rejected criterion is that the primary topic should only belong to what "first comes to mind". This argument is inevitably tainted by the personal background, location, biases, ethnicity, and other pieces of one's own life, but we are trying to build an encyclopedia that is untainted by systemic bias. The primary topic is therefore determined without regard to (for example) the national origin, if any, of the article or articles in question." ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 17:27, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose. The existence of other topics with similar names doesn't prevent this from being the primary topic. I suggest you look at the prior RMs above for more background. -- Calidum 18:27, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The existence of other topics with a name doesn't mean there is no primary topic -- otherwise, there wouldn't be any reason for the concept of a primary topic at all! If there is some sort of evidence we should look at to reverse the two discussions with clear consensus from within the last 9 months please share, but otherwise the metrics continue to show an overwhelming primary topic.--Yaksar (let's chat) 18:37, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, there is a clear primary topic. The other album was never relevant anyway. (CC) Tbhotch™ 19:43, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. WP:NWFCTM would apply here in this case if I insisted Future Nostalgia (The Sheepdogs album) was the primary topic because me and all my friends are huge Sheepdogs fans, talk about that album all the time, and we've never heard of Dua Lipa. There is no systemic bias at play with the current setup, since it adheres to both facets of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Nohomersryan (talk) 20:54, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, Honestly, The Sheepdogs album has little to no notability and should be deleted and considering every other "Future Nostalgia" related item is related to Lipa and this album, I would say this is definitely WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. LOVI33 01:41, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. --Sricsi (talk) 14:38, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Per comments above. — Tom(T2ME) 22:10, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:SNOW Oppose - per all of the above.--NØ 05:41, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

^ I concur - since it's clear this is not supported, the move discussion should close WP:SNOW. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 17:08, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Fever[edit]

I took a discussion to Template talk:Infobox album and I was told to bring a discussion here on whether "Fever" should be included in the infobox as a single. Although the template states that singles from re-releases shouldn't be included in the infobox, the song clearly promotes Future Nostalgia and the editor who responded to me suggested the the French edition was simple another release, not a re-release. Please read my further reasoning on Template talk:Infobox album and I'd love to hear what everyone thinks. LOVI33 02:28, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • This discussion concluded against including singles that weren't part of the album on its release day in the infobox. The only thing that could be argued is if its the lead single from the Moonlight Edition, for which I don't have an opinion.--NØ 07:48, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "We're Good" is clearly the lead single for the re-issue. I don't personally care for the current consensus - I think it was written/decided pre-digital/streaming era and therefore doesn't reflect modern release and marketing campaigns. That said, there has to be some clear principles and I don't personally have the energy to fight for change on it. The existing guidance makes sense to a degree... ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 16:40, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Fever" is definitely not the lead single of the Moonlight Edition. It was released on the French edition before The Moonlight Edition's release and I doubt that Lipa's marketing team would make an exclusive single its lead one. Thats why I was attempting to have its placement in the Future Nostalgia infobox as it does promote the album, it just wasn't apart of its standard edition. The existing guidelines do make sense as nowadays, standalone singles are added on the end of albums to increase sales when in no way are they apart of the album campaign. I'm just saying that I think there should be some exceptions to these rules and "Fever" is definitely one. Lil-unique1, do you know any steps I could take to change the rules? LOVI33 20:46, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Love Again[edit]

"Love Again" appears to have been played on a French radio station at 14:34 today: [6], though I can't find an explicit mention of today being the impact date.--NØ 15:09, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It was mentioned here too. We should wait for specific date. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 15:30, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, there's this tweet by a French journalist where he says that the song "has just been sent to French radio". I guess it means that it was sent to radio today. It was also played on Fun Radio this morning. Mirliz (talk) 16:20, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I notice it's been added to the article about the song that 11 March is the single date but it seems dubious- none of the articles actually say that's the date it's been released. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 00:29, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Moonlight Edition Producers Not Listed[edit]

Don't discuss the article on my talk page. Talk here. Do not credit Tainy's song with Bad Bunny and J Balvin of having multiple album appearances, when it had only 1. Also, do not revert edits unless a specific link is provided backing up the claims you have. Worried you have WP:COI since you reverted the proper edit detailing that "Un Día" had more than 1 album appearance multiple times. You have not provided any specific link saying anything other than Tainy's J Balvin's backup producer for a single track. Sucker for All (talk) 21:01, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@LOVI33 and Sucker for All: Pings in section titles don't go through. As well, COI is a very serious allegation, you shouldn't be throwing it all willy-nilly around because someone reinstated something in an article more than once. A COI is when someone knows the subject of the article in some aspect of life, whether that's through family, friends, work, etc. Besides, LOVI33 was right. "Un Dia" was also included on J Balvin's Summer Vacation, as said in the first paragraph of Un Dia (One Day), so saying it was only included on The Moonlight Edition would be giving undue weight to Lipa where equal weight is due between Lipa and Balvin. D🐶ggy54321 (let's chat!) 21:17, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Just to add on to what Doggy54321 said but I didn't realize you also added that. The only reason I have been reverting your edits is because you keep removing Tainy from the the infobox under producers and his place in the personnel section even though I have mentioned multiple times that he is credited on both Tidal and the liner notes of Future Nostalgia: The Moonlight Edition. LOVI33 21:23, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't appreciate my telling LOVI to discuss in the talk page and then see reverts within 6 minutes on the main page without a single discussion here. Additionally, LOVI's profile's *obsessed* with Dua, so while I do WP:AGF, the list of producers on Moonlight Edition was wildly incomplete until the edit I just made, so I question why this user's making rapid reverts rather than improving the article. Tainy was only ever involved on 1 Dua Lipa track, and Balvin was lead producer of it Sucker for All (talk) 21:26, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Stop removing the lead producers of Moonlight Edition from Moonlight Edition. Sucker for All (talk) 21:31, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Sucker for All: I don't know why you say that. I just have my good articles listed which happen to be all of hers as I am an active member of her wikiproject. When it comes to reissues, only producers for new tracks are credited in infoboxes and again you removed Tainy without a valid reason. I have given you sources where Tainy is credited while you just simply say he is not a lead producer without a source. That is why I reverted your edit. I mentioned that in the edit summary so I assumed that you would see it. I don't normally come to the talk page for simple explanation when I can just do it in the summery. LOVI33 21:32, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
All lead producers of tracks are given notoriety first, regardless of whether they were involved in the adaptation. J Balvin was the lead producer of his own track. Tainy didn't release the song on his own, so it's just a fact that he isn't lead producer. He had significantly less to do with the album than the other producers now correctly listed Sucker for All (talk) 21:37, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) That's a bit hypocritical, considering you keep removing one of the lead producers of Moonlight Edition from Moonlight Edition. If you would look at the Tidal source in the article, you would see that Balvin and Tainy are both credited as lead producers, both showing up under the "producer" field. We want to stick to the the source, so unless you can find a reliable source that says that Tainy should not be credited as such, they should either both be added or both be removed. Moving on, you're getting COI (conflict of interest) confused with SPA (single-purpose account). While I'm not saying that LOVI is either, if you're basing the accusation off of the fact that they are obsessed with Dua, you're describing a single-purpose account. D🐶ggy54321 (let's chat!) 21:38, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Sucker for All: you are confusing me a lot. There was only one version of "Un Dia" where both Balvin and Tainy are credited as producers. Can you provide a source that backs up that Tainy shouldn't be credited? LOVI33 21:40, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) I'm sorry, but that's blatant original research. Taylor Swift and Joe Alwyn are still credited as producers on "August", even though Jack Antonoff's name was listed first per the source used for the credits. Also, J, Dua, Tainy and Bad Bunny are all credited equally as lead artists of the song, so it is not J's track any more than it is Tainy's. D🐶ggy54321 (let's chat!) 21:42, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just to reiterate for the both of you, once something is under discussion, there shouldn't be any subsequent edits on the topic of the discussion until consensus has been made. Knowing this, please stop making edits to the page regarding this matter, as that would still be edit warring and would defeat the purpose of the discussion. Thanks! D🐶ggy54321 (let's chat!) 21:50, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dear @Doggy54321:, it is Not hypocritical to delete the 2nd producer on a track from being credited with producing the moonlight edition album in its entirety. At a baseline, all the lead producers for the album, including the lead producers of the original songs, should be credited. Tainy's Never the first producer credited on that song and has Not released the song of his own accord, so the song's lead producer, J Balvin's the owner of the track, in addition to Dua and maybe Bad Bunny, who both sing. Taylor and Joe helped Jack produce that track. The track's Jack. I did not remove Tainy from having a role on the song. He did, but the role was quite minimal. Sucker for All (talk) 03:42, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Sucker for All: Hypocritical or not, this still brings me back to my original point that all you're saying is original research. I have provided a source saying that J Balvin and Tainy are equal producers who have the exact same role with the exact same importance, so if you want to contest that, it's now your job to provide a source that says that only J was involved with the production. Once again, Dua, J, Tainy and Bad Bunny all equally own the track, as they are all credited as lead artists. It doesn't matter who sings or not, it matters what the sources say, and the sources say they are all lead artists. D🐶ggy54321 (let's chat!) 12:21, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@LOVI33:, all your edits run you the risk of being labeled a WP:SPA with the way you hound this page. Tons of reverts without discussion. And the statement you make "Only producers of new tracks belong in a reissue's infobox" is rather bullshit. The new track couldn't be produced if not for the original. I'd love to sample Michael Jackson's "Bad", change a few things, and call myself lead producer of the track, but that isn't reality. Sucker for All (talk) 03:51, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Sucker for All: I don't know why you say I "hound" this page. The only reverts I have made in the last month are you, vandalism and a WP:SOCK. I have barely been adding to this article anyways because I have been working on making Lipa's debut album a good topic. Not that its any of your business, but I often review good article nominations and I sometimes contribute to discussions outside of this topic. The only things I really revert on this page of what, to me seems like vandalism. Your edits seemed like vandalism to me as you kept removing the credits of a sourced producer. As for whether producers of original tracks belong in the infobox, that is just what I have been told being on wikipedia for a while. Anyways, I don't have the energy to defend myself against things I have not done nor collaborate with someone who accuses me of that. I think it is best that this discussion closes unless you can find a source to back up your WP:OR. LOVI33 12:45, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You're accusing me of WP:OR? If I use another person's production, I cannot claim that I own that person's song and not add them as a producer. And yes, I like hounds, unless they claim that pretty lights is allowed to claim nightmares on wax isn't a producer of "finally moving". Still, not one source lists Tainy's name as a *Lead* producer, that's J Balvin. Sucker for All (talk) 22:32, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sucker for All please stop removing Tainy. I have explained several times that Tainy is credited as a lead producer by several sources including Tidal and Spotify, that latter of which gets in information from Sony Music Publishing and Warner Records. Also, in this interview, Tainy explains how he produced the song. Finally, only Tainy is credited as a lead producer in the liner notes of Future Nostalgia: The Moonlight Edition indicating that he deserves even more of a lead producer credit than J Balvin. Also, I am not accusing of original research, I know you are using it. You cannot provide a source that backs up that one "cannot claim that I own that person's song and not add them as a producer", let alone provide one that it applies to this particular song. Even if you could provide a source to back up this claim, considering Tainy is credited in the liner notes, probably the most reliable for credits, he should still be credited. Your edits will continue to be reverted and again, I do not hound this page, I revert vandalism and original research. LOVI33 00:24, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Your TIDAL link's broken, and your Spotify link shows nothing. It's not uncommon for an artist to claim that they were more involved in a project than reality. Your liner notes claim isn't backed up by a link, and that quote had to do with you deleting other producers from the album and had nothing to do with Tainy. Since all links list Balvin first, Tainy's not a lead producer; it's WP:OR to claim otherwise Sucker for All (talk) 02:01, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Since you can't access either source, I went to both, and I can confirm that J Balvin and Tainy are both listed under the "producer" heading. The liner notes don't need a link, as sources can be from anywhere, as long as they can be checked by someone other than yourself. Tidal and Spotify are pretty reliable with their credits, so I don't think the liner notes will make a difference. Also: saying that, for a producer to be a lead producer, they need to be listed first is completely false. Even if it was true, there are thousands of pages that list all producers as lead producers, so I don't get why you're stuck on that "fact" when it is completely not true. At this point, neither you nor LOVI and I are ready to back down, so I think we should start a request for comment about this, so multiple editors can comment, and we can come to a formal consensus. D🐶ggy54321 (let's chat!) 02:21, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Doggy54321 I was just about to suggest that. I'm gonna start one right now. LOVI33 02:26, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@LOVI33: Awesome! I'll be ready to notify relevant WikiProjects so we can get as many opinions as possible. Thanks! D🐶ggy54321 (let's chat!) 02:28, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rfc - Tainy's producer credit[edit]

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
There's consensus that Tainy should be credited. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 16:15, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]


For this rfc, we are hoping to reach a consensus on whether Tainy should be listed as a producer for Future Nostalgia: The Moonlight Edition. LOVI33 02:41, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To add to what LOVI33 said, we are looking for a consensus as to if Tainy and J Balvin both deserve equal producer credits for the song "Un Dia (One Day)" (track 19 of The Moonlight Edition) or not. Please see the above section for more info. Thanks! D🐶ggy54321 (let's chat!) 02:47, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Votes[edit]

  • Should be credited: Tainy is credited as a lead producer for track 19, "Un Dia (One Day)" by Tidal, Spotify, Qobuz and the album liner notes. He is credited as a producer alongside J Balvin for all sources excluding the latter, where Tainy is only credited. LOVI33 02:45, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Should be credited: per LOVI33's comment above, and also the fact that sources have seemed to decide that they are both producers, with one source even going as far to only list Tainy. D🐶ggy54321 (let's chat!) 02:58, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
According to Qobuz, https://imgur.com/a/xVzAN0W , only J Balvin is listed Sucker for All (talk) 04:32, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Qobuz lists them both, LOVI says the liner notes only list Tainy as a producer. D🐶ggy54321 (let's chat!) 12:45, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Just to add but Sucker for All said above that Tainy shouldn't be credited because he is listed last by the sources, however, on Qobuz he is listed first. The way Qobuz lists their credits is kind of weird so I wil explain it. Basically, they list the person's name credit followed by what they did (writer, producer, etc.) separated by commas. The dashes are used to separate the names. LOVI33 13:13, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Can someone take a screencap for the thing they see from Qobuz. The imgur posted above is the exact thing I see. Only Balvin's listed according to Qobuz. Sucker for All (talk) 14:26, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Should not be listed , per comments above. Tainy never appears as lead producer. Despite claims that "sources" show otherwise, all links provided do not back up the arguments. Sucker for All (talk) 04:32, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Should be credited per LOVI33's reasoning. @Sucker for All: what did you find was broken about the Tidal link? Looks like it worked just fine on my end. QuietHere (talk) 11:03, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The link just didn't work on mobile. Lists J Balvin first though. Sucker for All (talk) 14:26, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Was using mobile. I see that the TIDAL link shows Tainy listed second under producer, meaning he is not a lead producer. Also Qobuz was not a link added by me, yet it shows only Balvin listed under the track. Sucker for All (talk) 14:26, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Should be credited - can we all be genuinely serious for a minute. I'm not even sure what people mean by lead producer. There are several types of producer: producer, co-producer, vocal producer, exec producer, assistant producer and additional producer. All of these should appear in the track listing section except for exec producers who are not actually technicians in their role. Per WP:NOEXEC only full producers a.k.a producers go in the infobox, none of the semi types. Retail credits and things like the album booklet suffice as acceptable sources unless a reliable source, message from the label etc says otherwise. Tidal/spotify etc usually credit all types of producer as just producers whereas album booklets explain the type of production. If album booklet says "co", "exec", "assistant" etc, then that's how it should be credited. Now can everyone please move on? There's more important things going on in the world. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 19:35, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Should be credited. I don't even understand why this discussion is happening. Many songs are produced by more than one person. If he is credited as a producer everywhere, including the liner notes of the album which is probably the most accurate way to know music credits, then he should be credited as a producer in this article as well. Mirliz (talk) 17:58, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Should be credited per previous comments. Much of the discussions regarding this whole thing appear to stem from confusion regarding the term "lead producer". Is there a clear definition for this term that we should be using or is it one of those ethereal terms that everybody uses differently across industries? PraiseVivec (talk) 13:51, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @PraiseVivec: It seems the consensus we've come to (though perhaps others still disagree) is that the term is meaningless, at least for WP standards, and we should just ignore that part of the discussion. QuietHere (talk) 15:47, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

New vote needed here. I believe things are not properly explained. Tainy is in fact currently credited in my version of the page edit. He is a supporting producer for the song and is credited as not only that, but also as one of the people involved in the one track in question. This discussion has to do with whether or not he should be lisetd in the header for the album given that he's never the first producer credited. I implore QuietHere and VersaceSpace to consider if everyone who is a supporting producer on a single track should be considered a "lead producer" in the header of the album. This would create a glut in the header of every album.. Sucker for All (talk) 14:26, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(In response to LOVI33's !vote, moved to this section by Doggy54321 as it does not belong in the !vote section)

TIDAL Link's broken. Spotify link lists Tainy last, so not lead producer. Qobuz only lists J Balvin and doesn't list Tainy at all. Only lead producers are credited as album producers; however, as per my latest edit of the article, Tainy's credited with support on the track in question. Sucker for All (talk) 04:32, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not WP:BLUDGEON the discussion. The Tidal link is fine, Qobuz lists them both. D🐶ggy54321 (let's chat!) 12:45, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
TIDAL link does not work for mobile. Please WP:AGF. I am having a discussion backed by logic, and I suggest you do the same. Also Qobuz only lists Balvin per imgur below. All of your links only verify my points. Tainy's never listed first. Sucker for All (talk) 14:26, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Can you point out where I wasn't assuming good faith? I definitely was, especially since I am also on mobile and can access the link without fail, every time. Even if it doesn't work on mobile, it works somewhere, so you not being able to access it will not affect the outcome of this discussion. Update: you have been bludgeoning the discussion. Per WP:BLUDGEON, Bludgeoning the process is where someone attempts to force their point of view by the sheer volume of comments, such as contradicting every viewpoint that is different from their own. You responded to both LOVI's comment and my comment, and just asked all the other !voters who share our viewpoints to reconsider, so yes, you are bludgeoning the discussion, and yes, I am assuming good faith. D🐶ggy54321 (let's chat!) 15:31, 13 May 2021 (UTC) (updated 15:34, 13 May 2021 (UTC))[reply]
Also, it is irrelevant whether a source lists one person before another. Both are crdited nonetheless. Should every song only have one producer? LOVI33 13:13, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The first producer listed is considered the *lead* producer. There's always a lead producer for a track. Sucker for All (talk) 14:26, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Says who??? I have never heard this claim before. D🐶ggy54321 (let's chat!) 15:31, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The phrase "lead producer" doesn't even appear in the record producer article, nor do I see it in any of the sources being discussed. Unless that specific term comes up in some other source that hasn't been presented in this discussion, surely that constitutes WP:OR. And of course, as LOVI said, in this case both should be credited regardless of this apparent producer hierarchy. QuietHere (talk) 16:14, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with QuietHere. Claiming the first credited producer is the lead one is definitely original research. Sucker for All can you provide a source to back this up? Could you also provide one backing up that this is the situation for this particular song? LOVI33 17:21, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Just one other thing. I thought I would just copy the entire credits from Qobuz and the liner notes. Sucker for All says Qobuz doesn't credit Tainy when it does and obviously I cannot provide a link for the liner notes. Here is Qobuz: "Marcos Masis, Composer, Writer - Tainy, Producer, MainArtist - J Balvin, Producer - Clarence Coffee Jr., Composer, Writer - J. Balvin, MainArtist - Jose Alvaro Osorio Balvin, Composer, Writer - Alejandro Borrero, Composer, Writer - Daystar Peterson, Composer, Writer - Dua Lipa, Composer, Writer, MainArtist - Bad Bunny, MainArtist - Benito Antonio Martinez Ocasio, Composer, Writer - Ivanni Rodríguez, Composer, Writer" And here are the liner notes - sorry if I misspelt anything I had to physically copy this: "19. J Balvin, Dua Lipa, Bad Bunny - Un Dia (One Day) (Feat. Tainy); Written by Dua Lipa, José Álvaro Osorio Balvin, Benito Antonio Martínez Ocasio, Daystar Peterson, Marcos Masis, Alejandro Borrero, Ivanni Rodriguez, and Clarence Coffee Jr, — Published by ASCAP IPI# 798424000, UMPG (BMI), RSM Publishing (BMI), Tory Lanez Publishing, EMI Blackwood Music Inc (BMI), 22 Words / Universal Musica, Inc. (ASCAP), 22 Reasons to Write / Universal Musica, Inc. (BMI) and Best Coffee In Town (ASCAP) — Produced by Tainy — Executive Producer: J Balvin — Recorded by Tainy for NEON16 — Mixed by Josh Gudwin — Mix Assistant: Elijah Marrett-Hitch — Vocals by J. Balvin, Dua Lipa, Bad Bunny and Tainy — Mastered By: Colin Leonard at SING Mastering, Atlanta, GA using SING Technology® — Universal Music Latino/NEON16: ®2020 Sueños Globales, LLC, Exclusively Licensed To UMG Recodings Inc." Hope this helps. LOVI33 17:40, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a source that says list order matters "Primary Artists must be listed first, before any other artist" https://routenote.com/blog/artist-credits-how-to-credit-the-other-people-in-your-music/ so definitely not WP:OR considering that's a music distribution website. You have a source that says that list order definitely doesn't matter? LOVI33 QuietHere ? Also the Imgur link above and again here shows that according to Qobuz, https://imgur.com/a/xVzAN0W , only J Balvin is listed. Obviously, you could provide a link to the liner notes by taking a picture and posting to Imgur. Why don't you do so? Tony's credited on the track in question twice in the article already. If we were to add everyone who even had the smallest bit to do with one track as one of the "producers" in the header of every album, the section would be bloated to irrelevancy. I agree that Tainy should be credited, twice, as he already is, for his support role on that 1 single track. I see not a single person above arguing that everyone who has a support article on a single track should be listed in the header as an album producer.. Sucker for All (talk) 22:31, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't even see the word "lead" in the body of that article, and what you're quoting isn't referring to producers but recording artists (It also says "There can be more than one Primary Artist," so still nothing on the singular "lead" front), thusly I'd call it irrelevant. And as Lil-Unique said above, why does this alleged distinction even matter? I don't know why Qobuz is formatted the way it is, but even so everything I've seen points to the Tainy credit belonging on the page. QuietHere (talk) 23:04, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the comments made by QuietHere. Additionally Sucker for All, I would argue that the source you provided is a WP:SPS. I mean, there seems to be a completely separate blog website from the music distributer's website. There is "blog" right in the website's name whereas the music distributer website does not have that. You also have not provided a source that the situation applies to this particular song. But thank you for suggesting I upload the sources to Imgur, I didn't think of that. Here are the liner notes and here are the Qobuz credits from my side. I don't think that Qobuz shows its credits on mobile, similar to Tidal. But in the future Sucker for All, I suggest that if you cannot properly access a source, WP:AGF. LOVI33 00:04, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Just to add some things Sucker for All. Firstly, I never asked you to provide a source that order matters, I just said it is irrelevant. I've noticed that secondary sources like Tidal and Spotify order names alphabetically. I could in turn ask you to provide a source that says order does matter because I know I cannot provide one for the opposite. As for a "bloated" producers section, WP:NOEXEC says that producers credited as exec, co-, additional, etc do not belong in the infobox. However, all sources that I have given back up that Tainy is simply a producer, not co-, additional, exec or any, meaning he is a "lead" producer. If you want to get all technical, J Balvin was never called a lead producer either. He has the exact same credits as Tainy (in fact Tainy has more with the liner notes) and the only argument that you have is Balvin happens to be credited first. Most likely due to alphabetical order. For an album, there could be 100 producers credited as simply producers, not additional, etc and we would have to put them in the infobox because they are all still credited as such. Could you also provide a source that backs up that Tainy simply "supported" Balvin's production? Maybe it would be easier if you explain why you think J Balvin had more to do with the production than Tainy. Please don't use the argument "he is credited first" as I have explained, that is irrelevant. LOVI33 03:35, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My two cents: I have no clue where the misconception that Tidal and Qobuz don't work on mobile came from. I have always edited on mobile and have been able to access those sources both in the past and in the present, so that is false. Anyways, we have found a way around that. @Sucker for All:: your source is a blog (WP:SPS), and that source doesn't seem all that credible. Even if it was, the fact that J Balvin is listed first in the artist field does not matter when we are talking about production credits. If we were to add everyone who even had the smallest bit to do with one track as one of the "producers" in the header of every album, the section would be bloated to irrelevancy – this is why WP:NOEXEC exists. Only record producers (not co-/additional/miscellaneous/vocal/executive producers) are listed in that particular field. Also: please stop with support role, it's getting annoying. We have provided two credible, reliable sources saying Tainy and J Balvin are equally listed as record producers, and one reliable source that only lists Tainy as a producer, and your failure to recognize these sources and still pushing a false viewpoint when the literal credits of the song disagree with you is getting disruptive (WP:IDHT). D🐶ggy54321 (let's chat!) 14:00, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure why this is such a mess, the wiki guidelines are quite straightforward on this "Enter the name of the person(s) credited as the actual record producer(s). Do not include those listed as executive, co-, additional, vocal, etc., producers, unless a reliable source identifies their contribution as substantially the same as the main producers. These should be included in the article body or track listings rather than be listed here." See producer. So it seems that Tainy is also a producer along with J Balvin...did he worked more or less on the song than J Balvin? I have no idea, the liner notes credited him as a producer so he should appear, plain and simple. He is credited, his whole contribution was a drumbeat or a synth line, doesn't matter a credit is a credit. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 20:45, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The Moonlight Edition section[edit]

Hello all! I recently merged The Moonlight Edition section with the rest of the article and PopLizard86427 reverted that so I would like to start a discussion about the section. The reason I merged it is I feel as though it lacks enough notability to be its own section. The promotion section is just a summary of a few points made in the "We're Good", "Prisoner" and "Un Dia (One Day)" articles while the background section can easily be incorporated into the release and promotion section. The track listing, personnel and release history can also easily be placed in those sections of the article above. The certifications section has one certification, New Zealand, which is presumably combined sales with the original album since it's first appearance on the chart states that it was on the chart for Future Nostalgia's run and it was already certified platinum. That is the same for the New Zealand charting as well. It can also be presumed that the Norwegian peak is combined sales since Future Nostalgia stopped charting when The Moonlight Edition started. The Finnish and Lithuanian peaks are not combined as both The Moonlight Edition and the original album charted simultaneously on both charts but since it did not reach a new peak on either charts beyond what the original album reached, I would say it is not notable. If it is decided that these positions are notable, we can create a new table under the current one for The Moonlight Edition or we can incorporate them into the current table with notes stating there were separate charting for The Moonlight Edition. Additionally, with sales for the original album, they also seem to be combining them with The Moonlight Edition (see UK sales) so it would be a lot easier to navigate if it was just one section for the entire album.

The one thing I would say is unachievable is the information included in the infobox. "We're Good" would not appear as a single (which personally I don't see as a huge deal since "Fever" also cannot appear as one); Sly ("We're Good"), Junior Oliver Frid ("If It Ain't Me"), Justin Parker ("That Kind Of Woman") and Tainy ("Un Dia (One Day)") would not appear as producers (again, I don't see this as a huge deal since they appear in the track listing section); La Vague ("Fever"), Sly ("We're Good"), Westlake ("We're Good"), Wendyhouse ("If It Ain't Me") and Fingers and Thumbs ("That Kind of Woman") would not appear as studios (The "Fever" and "We're Good" studios appear in their respective articles). The cover art for The Moonlight Edition can easily appear as an additional cover in the original album infobox. I think a merger like this would be similar to the way I incorporated information from Dua Lipa: Complete Edition in the Dua Lipa article. So what do you think? I would like to achieve a consensus for this. LOVI33 22:16, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: After reading what you said, I agree we should merge both releases into one. Thank you for your explanation! :) PopLizard86427 (talk) 22:51, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: About Were Good: I think it’s a single off the reissue, considering the fact it was sent to radios, at least where I’m at (US), it also appears as a single on Spotify, (via https://open.spotify.com/album/4t3Ur7xbLyt0ybULu8jJMH?si=1ljWwYAoQvyD7z1Piwjg-A&dl_branch=1 ) NME also calls it a single as well https://www.nme.com/news/music/dua-lipa-announces-first-new-single-of-2021-were-good-2871812 . PopLizard86427 (talk) 22:59, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

PopLizard86427 per Template:infobox album#singles, "We're Good" and "Fever" cannot be included as singles as they are included on re-releases of the album, not the standard edition. "We're Good" was referred to as the lead single from Future Nostalgia: The Moonlight Edition by Warner Records, while "Fever" was a single for the album's French Edition. So both are singles promoting the album however they are for specific releases, not the standard release. Additionally, several secondary sources have referred to "Love Again" as the album's sixth single ([7][8][9]). Therefore neither song belongs in the infobox for now. LOVI33 06:08, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Un Dia (One Day)"[edit]

"Un Dia (One Day)" was released as a single on July 23, 2020. The Moonlight Edition of Future Nostalgia, which was released in February 2021, included it. J Balvin's album, Jose, set to be released in September 2021, is also set to include it as the final track. Now, Lipa and Balvin are both credited lead on the track. A Camila Cabello fan kept trying to add Jose as the parent album in the song article's infobox (here), which reminded me that the "Señorita" article lists both Shawn Mendes and Romance as parent albums, despite "Shameless" and "Liar" having been the lead singles from the latter. Should both Moonlight and Jose be included as parent albums on the "Un Dia" article or neither?--NØ 09:49, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

MaranoFan, I would say Future Nostalgia: The Moonlight Edition does not belong in the infobox of "Un Dia (One Day)". From what I've seen, a song's infobox should only have the album's in which it promotes (although many articles contradict this). It really makes sense this way so the infobox doesn't get cluttered. If we do add Future Nostalgia: The Moonlight Edition, I feel like we would also have to add Balvin's compilation EP Summer Vacation so there is no undue weight when listing albums. The first appearance of "Un Dia (One Day)" on a Future Nostalgia album was The Moonlight Edition, and "We're Good" was confirmed as the lead single, so it is obviously not a single. This is unlike "Fever" which was added to digital editions of Future Nostalgia upon its release as well as the French edition, so that is why "Fever" still has Future Nostalgia in its infobox. As for whether Jose should appear, I would also say it shouldn't. For one, "Un Dia (One Day)" was released far in advance of Balvin announcing the album (January 2021), and the release of the second single "Otra Noche Sin Ti" (April 2021) [10]. Also, Template:Infobox song#album says that if a song was originally released as a single well in advance of the album, the album parameter should not be used. I think that fourteen months should suffice this. "Un Dia (One Day)" to me personally has always felt like a standalone single. I think there should definitely be a consensus at perhaps WP:SONGS on whether song infoboxes should include an album where the given single song appears as an album track and wasn't released to promote it because personally, I don't think Shawn Mendes or Romance should appear in the infobox of "Señorita". Romance has confirmed lead singles that were released after it, and the song just later appeared on the deluxe edition of Shawn Mendes, it didn't really promote it. LOVI33 17:27, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I concur with LOVI. D🐶ggy54321 (let's chat!) 17:58, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've also just discovered through Balvin's discography article that he released two solo standalone singles following "Un Dia (One Day)", "Ma' G" and "Tu Veneno". To me, this just further proves that "Un Dia (One Day)" was not apart of the marketing campaign for Jose and should not be listed a single for the album. LOVI33 18:03, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perfect. I have gone ahead and effected the changes on "Un Dia (One Day)". I suppose this isn't the appropriate venue to determine the fate of "Señorita", but I invite either of you to start a separate discussion about that if you please. Regards.--NØ 05:12, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it would be best to ping H9v9n9 so she can comment, due to the fact that she is the one who changed the information in the first place. D🐶ggy54321 (let's chat!) 00:22, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Future_Nostalgia&oldid=1220865605"